However, due to a move by the Aquino administration to hold allocations for unfilled/vacant positions and place it in a miscellaneous personnel benefits fund (MPBF), the judiciary stands to lose another P2 billion. This will bring the judiciary's budget to around P13 billion, or a total budget cut of P7 billion. Should this push through, the judiciary's budget for 2012 will be lower than its current allocation of P14.3 billion.

Abad is also moving for the inclusion of a special provision on the use of funds in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) for 2012 "so that it will not be used as savings and bonuses," and urged the judiciary to give a full accounting of the Judicial Development Fund (JDF) and the Special Allowances for the Judiciary (SAJ), which are taken from legal fees collected by the court.

To this, Marquez said: "Savings will always be used for lawful purposes, subject to COA's (Commission on Audit) accounting and auditing rules, and in accordance with the Court's fiscal autonomy."

Hong Kong: Filipina maid wins historic residency case

Filipina Evangeline Vallejos, who has worked as a domestic worker in Hong Kong since 1986, has won her historic, precedent-setting case to seek permanent residency.

The Associated Press called it “a landmark legal victory for hundreds of thousands of foreign maids fighting for equal treatment”.

“The Court of First Instance rejected arguments by Hong Kong government lawyers that the foreign maids did not have the same residency status as other foreign residents,” said an AP report.

Gladys Li, lawyer of Evangeline Banao Vallejos, a Filipino domestic helper applying for permanent residency, walks out from Hong Kong High Court after attending a hearing arguments in the case last month. Pic: AP.

“Friday’s ruling says that the immigration provision denying them the right to apply for permanent residency after seven years was inconsistent with the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution. Other foreign residents have the right to apply after that time,” AP added.

Prior to the court ruling, Hong Kong’s nearly 300,000 domestic workers were excluded from availing of permanent residency allowed for those who live there for seven straight years.

The United Filipinos in Hong Kong (UNIFIL), the largest organization of Filipinos there, supported Vallejos.

The denial of right of abode to FDWs [foreign domestic workers] also transgresses international conventions that seek equality of treatment regardless of race, gender or social standing. Agreements such as the Universal Declaration for Human Rights, International Convention for the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Their Families, Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Conventional for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women are just some of the human rights standards that are violated with the continued denial of right of abode to FDWs.

Responding to critics’ warnings over a pro-Vallejos ruling, the AMCB asserted that

The false and exaggerated statistics of FDWs and families ‘flooding’ Hong Kong are but baseless assumptions that only fan xenophobia and racial hatred. It is not FDWs getting permanent residency that should be feared, but the chaos that may arise from the provocative statements issued by some politicians and the Hong Kong government itself. In these times, some of the most hateful of crimes – such as the recent terror attack in Norway – have been committed under the ideology of racism and xenophobia against migrants and immigrants.

“We condemn those who create racial hatred among the people. Such ideology makes it appear acceptable to treat FDWs as second- or even third-class citizens of Hong Kong. It makes it appear permissible to commit various kinds of abuses to foreign maids. It makes it appear natural to reduce FDWs to modern-day slaves and creates the thinking that the rights of migrants can be selectively given or arbitrarily denied,” the AMCB added.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

SC approves Customs overtime pay

By LEONARD D. POSTRADO

September 25, 2011, 10:49pm

MANILA, Philippines — Customs personnel assigned at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) welcomed the Supreme Court (SC) decision giving the Bureau of Customs (BoC) the go-signal to require various airline companies to increase their overtime pay and other allowances.

In its 28-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, the SC Second Division declared as constitutional the Customs Administrative Order (CAO) No. 1-2005 which amended CAO No. 7-92.

Under the CAO No. 7-92, the BOC officers and employees at NAIA were to receive R30-38 hourly overtime pay, R50 traveling allowance per way, and R50 allowance per meal.

CAO No. 7-92 was amended into CAO No. 1-2005 which increased the rates of all charges by more than 100 percent. The hourly overtime pay of BoC officers and employees, as provided under CAO No 7-92, would now range from P66 to P83, P110 flat rate for traveling allowance, and R110 allowance per meal.

“The overtime pay, travel, and meal allowances are payment for additional work rendered after regular office hours and do not constitute double compensation prohibited under Section 8, Article IX (B) of the 1987 Constitution as they are in fact authorized by law or Section 3506 of the TCCP,” the SC said.

Based on court records, the BoC, together with Malacanang and the Department of Finance, elevated the case to the High Court after the Court of Appeals (CA) declared CAO No. 1-2005 unconstitutional on October 26, 2010

The CA, in its earlier decision, pointed out that Both CAO 7-92 and 1-2005 - which were promulgated pursuant to Section 3506 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP) - were “unenforceable” against the BAR members.

Section 3506 states that “custom officials may be assigned by a collector to do overtime work at rates fixed by the Commissioner of Customs when the service rendered is to be paid for by importers, shippers, or other persons served.”

Monday, September 26, 2011

We can see many of the observations in this article happening in the Philippines.

Excerpts:

"x x x.

Which leads to an obvious question: How might things be set right? The solution to the system's many problems has two main ingredients.

The first is a revival of the ideal of equal protection of the laws. Criminal punishment will not control crime at acceptable cost as long as punishment is imposed and the law's protection is provided discriminatorily. The second ingredient is a large dose of the local democracy that once ruled American criminal justice. That second aspect of wise reform is already happening: the rise of community policing has made local police more responsive to the wishes of those who live with the worst crime rates. That trend needs to go farther. Plus, we need fewer guilty pleas and more jury trials in order to give local citizens -- not just prosecutors -- the power to decide who merits punishment and who doesn't. More jury trials in turn require a different kind of criminal law: law that looks more like the criminal law of America's past, and less like the speed limits that give state troopers unconstrained power over those who travel America's highways.

Sunday, September 25, 2011

DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT ENTERPRISES AND PRIVATIZATION TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, INTO THE PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT TO BE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE METROPOLITAN WAERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM (MWSS) THRU THE MAYUNILAD WATER RESOURCES, AND THE RESIDENTS OF SUBDIVISIONS OF BF RESORT, BF PILAR, AND BF ALMANZA, WHICH WOULD LEAD TO EXORBITANT WATER RATES.

(Filed by Cong. Maximo B. Rodriguez, Jr. and Cong. Rufus Rodriguez)

POSITION PAPER
[On the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Among
Maynilad Water Resources (Maynilad Water, As a Concessionnaire
of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS), BF Resort Village Homeowners Association Inc. [“BFRVHAI” or “Association”), BF Homes Inc. and Philippine Waterworks and Construction Corporation (PWCC)]

1. BF Resort Village (“BFRV” or “Subdivision”) is a subdivision located in Talon Dos, Las Pinas City.

2. BF Resort Village Homeowners Association Inc. (BFRVHAI) is the homeowners association among the homeowners within BFRV.

3.BFRV was developed by BF Homes Inc. with the lots almost fully sold out, despite which BF Homes has not turned or donated the BFRV open spaces to the City Government of Las Pinas or the BFRVHAI.

4.As admitted by BF Homes, the BRFV water system is operated by PWCC, a sister company of BF Homes.

5.In the deeds of sale of the lots inside the BFRV, sold by BF Homes to BFRV homeowners, BF Homes expressly undertook to provide water to the lot buyers.

6.Maynilad Water is the concessionaire of MWSS in Las Pinas City.

7. The financial package stated in the questioned Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that applies to BFRV homeowners consists of the following:

7.1. The homeowners, thru the Association, will pay BF Homes/PWCC the amount of FORTY THREE MILLION PESOS (Php43,000,000.00) for the use of the old water facilities of the latter located inside the subdivision, payable as follows:

7.1.1. EIGHT MILLION PESOS (Php8,000,000.00), payable at P1,000.00 per homeowner, approximated at 8,000 homeowners (subject to upward or downward adjustment depending on the actual number of homeowners applying for Maynilad water connection);

7.1.2.TWENTY FIVE MILLION PESOS (Php25,000,000.00), to be advanced by Maynilad Water to BF Homes, subject to reimbursement by the homeowners in 60 monthly amortizations; and

7.1.3.TEN MILLION PESOS (Php10,000,000.00), consisting of application of the paid water and water meter deposits of homeowners with the PWCC.

7.2.Maynilad Water will advance the pipe laying costs of TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-SIX MILLION PESOS (Php286,000,000.00) for the account of the homeowners, payable within five (5) years at a monthly amortization of about P648.00 per month, subject to adjustment depending on how many homeowners will apply for water connection with Maynilad Water.

8. Maynilad will advance the total amount of P311 Million as follows:

8.1. P25 M as payment to BF Homes for the use of the old water pipes; and

8.2.P286 M as costs of pipe laying for the new water system.

9. The certificate of public convenience in favor of BF Homes already expired in August 2011.

10. As early as 2006, the capex of BF Homes for the water facilities inside the subdivision was already reported at “0” book value.

II. Major Issues

The major issues raised herein are:

A.Whether or not BF Homes/PWCC are entitled to the compensation in the amount of FORTY THREE MILLION THOUSAND PESOS (Php 43,000,000.00) for the use of their more than 30 years old water pipes?

B.Whether or not the pipe laying costs of TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-SIX MILLION PESOS (Php286,000,000.00) may be charged by Maynilad Water to the homeowners of the BF Resort Village, represented by the BF Resort Village Homeowners Association?

C.Whether or not the compulsory donation of the new water system to be paid by the homeowners in favor of Maynilad Water/MWSS is valid and binding?

D.Whether or not the water and water meter deposits of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) of one (1) set of homeowners may be legally applied as payment for the use of the old water facilities of BF Homes/PWCC?

III.DISCUSSION

The above issues are discussed in the following paragraphs.

A.Whether or not BF Homes/PWCC
are entitled to the compensation
in the amount of FORTY THREE
MILLION THOUSAND PESOS
(Php 43,000,000.00) for the use
of their more than 30 years old
water pipes?

Position: BF Homes/PWCC are not entitled to compensation of P43 M
for the use by Maynilad Water of the more than 30 years old
water pipes.

Reasons: 1. The costs of the pipe laying, including the open spaces
on which the water system stands were already
inputted as part of the development costs that
composed the selling prices of the lots sold.

2. BF Homes/PWCC operated the water facilities for more
than 30 years, selling water to the homeowners for the
same period of time, thereby making huge profits
therefrom already.

3. The certificate of public convenience of BF
Homes/PWCC has already expired in August 2011.

4. The capex of BF Homes/PWCC inside BF Resort Village
had been reported as “0” book value as early as 2006.

5. Contrarywise, BF Homes, thru PWCC, even has the legal
obligation under P. D. 1345 to pay the rehabilitation or
restoration of the water system upon the turnover
thereof to MWSS (represented by Maynilad Water).

B.Whether or not the pipe laying costs
of TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-SIX
MILLION PESOS (Php286,000,000.00)
may be charged by Maynilad Water to the
homeowners of the BF Resort Village,
represented by the BF Resort Village
Homeowners Association?

Position: The pipe laying costs of Maynilad Water ought to be
shouldered by it and not to be passed on to the
homeowners.

Reasons: 1.Any and all business entities ought to shoulder all
capital expenditures connected with their line of business. Maynilad Water must not be excluded from this basic business precept.

Parallel examples are Meralco and PLDT. Even these two (2) huge utility companies are known to be shouldering their own capex. They do not pass to the consusmers their capex.

2. During the operation of the new water system, Maynilad
water will be allowed to charge water rates
commensurate to the capex invested.

Will Maynilad Water be allowed rates of return on
capex that were put up by the homeowners. This is
very unfair and unjust.

C.Whether or not the compulsory donation
of the new water system to be paid by the
homeowners in favor of Maynilad Water/MWSS
is valid and binding?

Position: The Board of Directors of the BF Resort Village
Homeowners Association has no power to sign the
MOA that provides for the compulsory donation of
the new water system amounting to P311 million that
comprise all or substantially all of the assets of the
homeowners that the Association represent.

Reasons: 1. The Board of Directors is only allowed to make
reasonable donation under Section 36 of the
Corporation Code.

2. To make such donation valid and binding, the
donation ought to be approved by at two-thirds
(2/3) of the members of the Association as
provided under Section 40 of the Corporation Code.

There was no such approval of the donation by at
least 2/3 of the members of the Association.

D.Whether or not the water and water meter
deposits of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00)
of one (1) set of homeowners may be legally
applied as payment for the use of the old water
facilities of BF Homes/PWCC?

Position: The water and water meter deposits of one (1) set of
homeowners cannot be applied as part of the
compensation to BF Homes/PWCC.

Reasons: 1. The Association is not the owner of the those water and
water meter deposits;

2. There will be owners of those water and water meter
deposits agreed to be applied who will not apply for
Maynilad Water connection.

3. The owners of those water and water meter deposits
have not agreed to the application of their water and
water meter deposits as payment for BF Homes/PWCC.

1. Copy of the MOA with BF Resort Village Homeowners Assn
2.Copy of Financial Statements of BF Homes
3.Copy of Deed of Sale of BF Homes covering the sale of lots in BF Resort Village
4.Copy of the CPC renewal of BF Homes

“Insofar as civil and political rights are concerned, dictatorial and repressive rulings in laws and jurisprudence remain and are still being abused.” – Edre Olalia, secretary general of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers

By RONALYN V. OLEA

Bulatlat.com

MANILA – Thirty-nine years after the declaration of martial law and twenty five years since the ouster of the late Ferdinand E. Marcos from Malacañang, the repressive decrees, executive orders and jurisprudence that were issued during his dictatorship continue to be used against the Filipino people.

Marcos placed the entire country under martial law on September 21, 1972. He abolished Congress, shut down media establishments, and ordered the arrest and detention of thousands of people, including activists from the ranks of the youth and students, workers, peasants, the urban poor, the church among others, and opposition leaders.

But the Filipino people refused to be cowed. After 14 years, the Marcos dictatorship was ousted by a people power uprising.

There were much expectations on the administration of the late president Cory Aquino, especially with regards dismantling all the vestiges of martial law. Her administration immediately ordered the release of all political prisoners, restored the institutions of democracy and the people’s formal democratic rights, formed a governmental commission on human rights, and worked for the inclusion of provisions protecting human rights in the 1987 Constitution.

However, the Cory Aquino administration fell short of rescinding the repressive decrees and issuances of the dictator Marcos. And so did the succeeding administrations.

“Insofar as civil and political rights are concerned, dictatorial and repressive rulings in laws and jurisprudence remain and are still being abused,” Edre Olalia, secretary general of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), said.

Olalia cited the Ilagan vs. Ponce-Enrile, a Supreme Court decision rendering moot and academic the remedy of habeas corpus upon the subsequent filing of charges.

The said jurisprudence was used when the Court of Appeals junked the habeas corpus petition of relatives of the 43 health workers arrested in Morong, Rizal, collectively known as the Morong 43, in February 2010.

“Once a person is duly charged in court, he may no longer question his detention through a petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be allowed after the party sought to be released had been charged before any court,” the CA said in its decision.

“Judicial relief cannot be availed of because of this doctrine,” Olalia said. “The mere filing of information or a formal charge subsequent to the arrest, no matter how illegal it is, regardless of the multiplicity of violations of the constitutional rights of the accused, is enough basis for dismissing the habeas corpus petition.”

The NUPL and the Public Interest Law Center (PILC), whose members serve as lawyers of the Morong 43, appealed the CA decision before the Supreme Court. The appeal remains pending.

Olalia said they are hopeful that the Supreme Court will not dismiss or declare their appeal as moot given the release of most of the Morong 43 from detention. “Fundamental issues are involved here,” he said.

PILC said this jurisprudence has served as a tool of the government, the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to carry out the “unlawful warrantless arrest and arbitrary detention of members of progressive organizations.”

Another martial law doctrine, Presidential Decree 1866 as amended, allowing the filing of charges of illegal possession of firearms with respect to political offenses, is still being used against activists. This paved the way for the filing of criminal charges against those suspected of committing political offenses such as rebellion.

The Morong 43 have been charged with this offense. According to human rights group Karapatan, as of August this year, at least 64 of the 350 political prisoners have been slapped with charges of illegal possession of firearms and illegal possession of firearms and explosives.

Also commonly used against activist groups is the Batas Pambansa 880 (BP 880) that restricts and controls the right to peaceful assembly. This law requires that permits for rallies be applied for.

Olalia related that when Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) sought permit from the local government to hold a rally during President Benigno S. Aquino III’s second State of the Nation Address (Sona), the Quezon City local government denied the application for permit. When the NUPL filed a petition to such denial, the local court also denied the petition.

“Repressive as already it is, directives and safeguards of BP 880 are not followed. It’s just a simple rally,” Olalia said. Under BP 880, failure of the local government to act on the application for permit within two working days, renders the application as being granted. In the case of Bayan’s application, the local government did not act within two working days and denied the application nevertheless.

While Olalia welcomed the Supreme Court decision striking down the calibrated preemptive response (CPR) during the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo administration, he expressed regret that the high court affirmed BP 880.

On Sept. 21, 2005, the thirty-third anniversary of martial law, then Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita announced the enforcement of a “no permit, no rally” policy and the CPR. Bayan filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of CPR and BP 880. The high court nullified the CPR but upheld the constitutionality of BP 880.?

Other Marcosian decrees that are still being used are General Orders 66 and 67 (authorizing checkpoints and warrantless searches and Presidential Decree 169 as amended (requiring physicians to report cases of patients with gunshot wounds to the police/military).

Under the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) signed by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP, now Government of the Philippines of GPH) and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) in March 1998, the GRP committed to work for the immediate repeal of all subsisting repressive laws, decrees, or other executive issuances. CARHRIHL cited not only those under Marcos but also executive issuances and jurisprudence under the administrations of Corazon Aquino and of Fidel Ramos.

CARHRIHL also provides that: “Upon the effectivity of this Agreement, the GRP shall, as far as practicable, not invoke these repressive laws, decrees and orders to circumvent or contravene the provisions of this Agreement.”

Twelve years since the signing of CARHRIHL, these repressive laws remain in force.

Olalia said, despite the strong clamor to junk these repressive decrees and laws, it appears that subsequent post-martial law administrations retained these because these are favorable to them. “These repressive issuances are part of the overall state apparatus to suppress the civil and political rights of the people.”

He said the mindset that the state can just violate human rights remains. “They have the mindset that we are the rulers and you are mere subjects.”

While Olalia said there is no longer an open fascist rule, state repression has not changed “essentially and fundamentally.”

“In the contradiction between the government having very broad and wide powers and its duty to protect the individual and collective rights of the Filipino people, the three branches tend to give weight on the powers of the state, which is very regretful to say the least because individual and collective rights are actually the very bases of this government,” Olalia said.

Asked to comment on the Aquino administration, Olalia said human rights is not a priority of Aquino.

“He chose to release military rebels but not the political prisoners, 85 percent of whom were detained during the Arroyo administration and he is a beneficiary of that struggle,” Olalia said.

He said the struggle for human rights shall continue. “The triumphs of the struggles for human rights are not won overnight, it is incremental, cumulative, arduous and require continuing sacrifice and struggle. The government, having absolute powers, will never tire to suppress the people. There is no other choice for the people but to fight for and defend their rights.”

- Limitation on proceedings -- pleadings subsequent to the complaint, answer and reply may be filed by parties only upon permission by the court, and must not exceed 20 pages in length, double-spaced, using size 14 font.

- Motions -- those that do not conform with Rule 15 of the Rules of Court on motions will not be considered by the court; courts can refuse to receive them. If received, the court shall issue an order declaring such motion "a mere scrap of paper unworthy of any further court action, without conducting hearings or requiring comment from concerned party.

Courts shall require only a comment or opposition to the motion and thereafter, the motion is deemed submitted for resolution. Replies, rejoinders or joint rejoinders are prohibited.

- Postponements -- courts shall allow only a maximum of 3 postponements for each party. Once consumed, no postponements shall be granted to the same party. No motion for postponement, whether written or oral, will be acted upon by the court unless accompanied by the original official receipt from the Office of the Clerk of Court evidencing payment of the postponement fee.

- Affidavits in lieu of direct testimony -- direct examination of witnesses shall be through affidavits, preferably in question-and-answer format. These affidavits shall take the place of the witness' direct examination and no additional oral direct testimony shall be allowed by the court except for the witness' identification and confirmation of his affidavit, its marking, and the identification of an accused in a criminal case where there is no stipulation on such identity.

Cross-examination shall be conducted immediately after the confirmation of the affidavit, and the testimony of the witness shall be completed on the same setting.

- Lack of transcripts of stenographic notes -- incomplete or missing transcripts of stenographic notes shall not be entertained as a reason to interrupt or suspend the mandatory period for deciding the case.

- Consolidations -- consolidation of cases shall only be allowed if both or all of the cases sought to be consolidated have not yet passed the pre-trial or preliminary conference stage.

Consolidation in civil cases should be granted only if there is identity of parties and issues in the affected cases.

- Inhibitions -- each party shall be allowed to file one motion for inhibition in any case strictly on grounds under Rule 137 of the Rules of Court on disqualification of judicial officers.

- Free legal assistance -- if a party fails to qualify for the services of the PAO, the IBP shall provide free legal assistance to said party.

- Schedule of arraignment -- arraignment shall be set within 7 days from receipt of the case by the court for detained accused, and within 20 days from receipt of the case by the court for non-detained accused. The arraignment must be set in the commitment order in the case of detained accused, or in the order of approval of bail, in any other case.

- Suspension of arraignment -- courts shall strictly observe the general rule that there shall be no suspension of arraignment except for any of the three grounds stated in Rule 116, Section 11 of the Rules of Court.

In case of suspension of arraignment by reason of a pending petition for review with the DOJ, no court shall allow a suspension beyond 60 days. In granting motions on this ground, the court shall already set the arraignment on the 61st day from the date of filing of the petition with the DOJ, or the nearest available trial date thereafter.

A motion for preliminary investigation shall only be granted where the accused was made subject to inquest proceedings, pursuant to Rules 112, Section 7 of the Rules of Court.

In cases where a motion for preliminary investigation or re-investigation is granted by the court, the city prosecutor shall complete the preliminary investigation or re-investigation, as the case may be, and submit its resolution to the court within 60 days from receipt of the order granting the motion for preliminary investigation or re-investigation. Upon lapse of the 60-day period without a resolution on the preliminary investigation or re-investigation, the court shall proceed with the arraignment of the accused. In the order granting the motion for preliminary investigation or re-investigation, the court shall already set the arraignment of the accused.

The court shall not allow the deferment of arraignment on ground of absence of counsel for the accused if a prior postponement for the same reason has been granted and both accused and counsel are duly notified of the arraignment. In such instances, the court shall appoint a counsel de oficio to assist the accused for arraignment purposes only.

No motion for judicial determination of probable cause shall be entertained when a warrant of arrest has been issued or when arraignment has been set.

- Petitions for bail -- except in complex cases involving multiple accused and/or multiple offended parties, an application for bail shall be heard and resolved within sixty (60) days from the date of the first hearing and consistent with the rules, summary in nature, preferably requiring the submission by the prosecution of the affidavits of its witnesses with the right of cross examination by the defense.

- Pre-trial -- the court shall schedule the arraignment and pre-trial on the same date in the case of detained accused, except in cases which require mediation and/or judicial dispute resolution. The pre-trial proper in the latter cases must be scheduled immediately upon conclusion of mediation and/or judicial dispute resolution.

Pre-trial should proceed despite the absence of the accused and/or private complainant provided they were duly notified of the same.

The guidelines submitted to the court En Banc was a joint effort of an Ad Hoc committee, Office of the Court Administrator(OCA) of the Supreme Court, IBP, Department of Justice(DOJ), and assisted by the American Bar Association-Rule of Law Initiative.

Section 3, Article VIII of the Constitution expressly states: "The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year, and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released."

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

There lies one possible flaw in the system, at least according to certain members of the House: It is all up to the Supreme Court, which unfortunately does not have complete control over the appointment of judges.

In other words, those congressmen are taking note of the absence of accountability on the part of those who appoint the judges. They are the members of the Judicial Bar Council, or the JBC.

For one, the congressmen note that the system allows lawyers to apply directly with the JBC to become judges. Congressmen have found this questionable.

For instance, how does the JBC check the track record of the applicants? Does the JBC have the means to conduct a thorough background check, in the first place? When the JBC recommended judges falter, does the council get the blame?

In other words, there is no accountability on the part of the appointing power.

Now, what can the members of the House—or even the Senate for that matter—do with the JBC and their theory regarding accountability?

The JBC is a constitutional body; it was created by the 1987 Constitution.

The complaint against Lee and others before the DOJ Task Force on Securities and Business Scam was heard for a period of eight months by a panel that included senior assistant state prosecutor Ma. Emilia Victorio and assistant state prosecutors Bryan Jacinto Cacha, Susan Villanueva, Edmundo Magpantay, and Rohaira Tamano.

After eight months of hearing and thoroughly evaluating the evidence and documents on hand, the panel recommended that a simple estafa case be filed against Lee and two other GA executives. The offense is bailable.

However, when the task force chair and senior deputy state prosecutor Theodore Villanueva reviewed the draft resolution, he revised the panel’s recommendation from simple estafa to syndicated estafa, which is non-bailable.

Besides Lee and the two other GA executives, Villanueva recommended the inclusion of Lee’s son Dexter and a Pag-Ibig lawyer, making them five which is a requisite for syndicated estafa.

Observers are now questioning Villanueva’s basis for overturning the panel’s recommendation. They are asking what Villanueva could have seen that the panel of five prosecutors did not. They also wonder whether the late inclusion of Dexter Lee and the Pag-Ibig lawyer was a mere legal maneuver to fulfill the requisite for syndicated estafa, and whether Villanueva and Prosecutor General Claro Arellano who approved the review resolution are getting instructions from someone else.

It will be recalled that Villanueva himself signed the resolution of the panel recommending simple estafa only to change it later to syndicated estafa.

According to the NBI and Pag-Ibig, the respondents conspired to use “ghost” borrowers to obtain more than P6 billion in loans from Pag-IBIG to finance the purchase by these borrowers of GA’s housing units at the Xevera project in Pampanga.

The Senate committee on justice and human rights is ready to submit to the plenary a measure suspending the continued implementation of the law.

Sen. Francis Escudero, justice committee chairman, said the resurgence of crimes principally committed by minors, the latest of which are the so-called “Hamog Boys” notorious in the vicinity of Makati, especially along EDSA in Guadalupe, made urgent the suspension of RA 9344.

The Senate committee proposed the suspension of the implementation of the provision of the 5-year-old Juvenile Justice Law to enable law enforcement agencies to go after teenage criminals.

Escudero said he is readying the committee report that will recommend the suspension of the provision in the law that exempts individuals below 15 years old from being arrested and charged with criminal offenses.

Escudero explained that the law will not be repealed altogether since it has good provisions on rehabilitation of young offenders.

“The age covered by the exemption will just be adjusted. It’s back to nine years old, which was in the old law,” the senator said, referring to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code as amended by the Child and Youth Welfare Code.

The senator made the stand following public concern over the snatching and attacks made by the so-called Batang Hamog on car owners, taxi drivers and passengers caught in traffic along major thoroughfares in Metro Manila.